Sir, I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the House having been counted out yesterday through the instrumentality and by the active exertions of persons connected with the Government—especially of one entrusted by the Government to muster up forces on all occasions of this kind—I shall renew the Motion with respect to Vancouver's Island, so cut short yesterday, as an Amendment to the first Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

Does the noble Lord allude to me?

I do not allude to the hon. Gentleman as far as the counting out is concerned; but I also say that the hon. Gentleman did all he could to prevent a House being made.

That is not the case. I sent notices to all the Members of the Government. I was absent from the House at the conclusion of the noble Lord's speech, in consequence of indisposition.

All I mean to say is, that when I entered the House at a few minutes after four o'clock, I was assured by an hon. Member who had come in just before four o'clock, that there were only thirty-nine Members present. The hon. Member to whom he alluded was the noble Lord the Member for Evesham.

said, that during the four hours and a half occupied by the noble Earl in his address, there had been very few Members on the opposite side of the House. The counting out of the House was felt to be an inconvenience; for, after the speech of the noble Lord, my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Colonies was prepared to give what he considered would be a most satisfactory answer to that speech. If, before making the complaint, the noble Earl had calculated cause and effect, he might have expected that some such result would follow an address of such duration; but surely the noble Earl had as much reason to complain of the one side of the House as of the other.

I complain of the count out.

here suggested, that hon. Gentlemen should reserve any remarks until the House arrived at the dropped orders.

said: I take the liberty of saying that there is no intention on the part of the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk to attribute to the Members of the Government, usually so called, any disposition to get rid of this important question by counting out the House. Irrespective of the impropriety of getting rid of such a question in such a manner, I think the inexpediency of such a course at such a time is obvious; especially when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, was about to make a reply—a reply which I confess I was curious to hear, but not for the reason entertained by the hon. Gentleman himself, namely, that it would be a satisfactory one to the case presented by the noble Earl. At the same time I think the occurrence was most unfortunate; and I wish the hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland, who interposed on that occasion, would state the motives which governed him in exercising a privilege which I admit is sometimes usefully exercised. I regret the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Evesham, as he knew what proceedings were taken, and the reasons which gave rise to them. With respect to the Motion itself, considering not only the general importance of the question, but that the Motion distinctly arraigns the conduct of the Government with respect to it, while at the same time it contemplates a plan of policy and alteration for putting an end to an unfortunate arrangement by just and equitable means—I would make a suggestion to the Government, not, however, in the nature of a request, that it would be expedient for them to name a day on which the debate may be concluded. I know that such a suggestion is not palatable at this period of the year. My noble Friend has given notice of bringing the Motion on again on the first occasion of going into Supply, It is plainly a question which ought not to be mooted without being brought to a decided issue; and as I think the debate should take place as early as possible, I beg to suggest to the Government, under the circumstances, that they should name a day for bringing it to a conclusion.

In the absence of my noble Friend who has the conduct of the business of this House, I am unable to enter into any arrangement of the kind proposed. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I regret as much as any man the untimely end of the discussion last evening. I believe that no time is ever gained by a resort to such a proceeding. I feel bound to say, especially after the attacks which have been elsewhere made on my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, imputing to him, that after the elaborate attack made on the department with which he is connected, and just at the moment when he rose to address the House, he committed an act of suicide, and put an end to the discussion and to his own speech—I feel bound to say that, sitting near to him at the time, I was made acquainted with his sincere and unaffected regret, that, by the counting out of the House, he was precluded from making what he considered would be a sufficient answer to the statement and objections of the noble Earl. But I must protest against the doctrine that it is the especial duty of the Government to keep a House. [The Earl of LINCOLN: I did not say so.] With respect to the anxiety of those sitting oh the Ministerial side of the House, all I can say is, that certain Members of the Government were present when the House was counted out; and that there were at least as many Members on this side of the House as there were surrounding the noble Earl. But I think in cases of this kind, when a Member of the leading station and position of the noble Earl opposite introduces a Motion, the least thing the House can expect is, that he should use his influence amongst his own friends in order to secure a sufficient House. I entirely deny that there was any intention on the part of the Government to count out the House. I regret that it took place; but in the absence of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, and in the present position of public business, I cannot give the pledge required by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford.

remarked, as a curious circumstance, that the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk was not present when the House was made yesterday.

Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is evading the charge I made. I never said that it was the duty of the Government to keep a House. Quite the contrary; I said it was just as much the interest of individual Members as of the Government. Nor did I say, that when Government business was not on, it was the duty of the Government to make a House. With respect to my own absence from the House, it was accidental, a person having called on me at the last moment, which detained me for two or three minutes. I am ready to take upon myself any blame which may attach to me on that account. But, although I did not say that it was the duty of the Government to make a House, I did say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that an attempt had been made to prevent a House being made. This is a very different thing to the Government making a House. And I did say also, what I am now prepared to repeat, that with respect to the Government making a House on the occasion, an hon. Friend of mine informed me that the only Member connected with the Government present when the House was made, was the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS here intimated that they were in the House at the time.] I know that when the House is made, the Members of the Government pour in. But what I complain of is, not that a House was not kept, but that a Member holding office, and connected with the Government—a Gentleman whose especial duty it is to muster the forces of the Government—should, for a considerable period, have actively employed himself in endeavouring to reduce the numbers in the House below what was necessary to constitute a House; and I, then, distinctly charge him—I have it from the lips of hon. Members—with what is called "whipping out the House." What I say may not be Parliamentary, but it is correct. I acquit the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies—I have no reason to think that any Member of the Cabinet either authorised, or themselves made any exertion to get the House counted out. But what I say is, that the noble Lord the Member for Evesham, who holds this particular office, ought not on an occasion of this kind, when an important Motion is brought forward, to exert himself to get the House counted out. [ Lord Marcus Hill here entered the House. ] I rejoice exceedingly that the noble Member has entered the House, and I now repeat the charge, that he was instrumental in getting the House reduced below the number of forty; and if he wishes the particular names of the three hon. Members who not only saw but heard these things, I will give them. All I have further to say is, that if the consequence of bringing my Motion on, on going into Committee of Supply, will be to impede public business, the responsibility does not rest with me, but with the noble Lord, who prevented the question being debated last night, and that the mischief must be borne by the Government for not preserving sufficient discipline in their ranks.

I assure the noble Earl that I took no open measures whatever. An hon. Friend of mine told me of an intention to count the House out, and I certainly made no effort to dissuade him from doing so. But to say that I went about canvassing Members to go away, I did nothing of the kind.

I ask the noble Lord whether, on strangers being ordered to withdraw, he did not meet an hon. Member coming into the House, and distinctly say to him, "Don't go in—the House may be counted out?"

I may have said so, but I don't think that implies any deliberate attempt on my part to canvass Members.

Were you not at the green door behind the Speaker's chair, preventing Members from coming in?

I had just come out of the Speaker's room, where I had retired to converse with a right hon. Friend, and was conversing with him when the thing occurred.

said, no doubt it was a hard case for the noble Earl opposite to be counted out; but he thought the case just as hard when it referred to a Motion affecting the welfare of the great mass of the people as when it related to Vancouver's Island. At the same time, however, he hoped the House would stop to continue the debates when once they were begun, for he was sure that in the end they would save time to the House and the Government by following that course.

considered they were wasting the time of the House by keeping up this discussion; but at the same time he must ask the Speaker and the House, when the practice of counting out was so frequently followed during the Session, creating impediments and obstructions to the public business, whether they ought not to inquire how they could best put some stop to the measure. Though only thirty-seven Members, independent of the Speaker, were present last night, probably in the course of an hour after the House was counted, the number would have been swelled to between 100 and 200 Members, for they all knew that many Members were in the habit of going out at a particular hour and returning again afterwards. He therefore thought it a very unfortunate circumstance that on a Motion of so much importance the House should have been counted out at such a period of the evening; and he wished some plan to be devised to prevent the recurrence of the like in future.

could speak himself as to the activity behind the chair of the noble Lord, the whipper-in of the Government, in getting the House counted out. It had been said that it could not have been the object of the Government to effect a count-out; but in his opinion the Under Secretary for the Colonies would not find a little delay at all inconvenient for him in preparing a defence. The country now took a great interest in colonial affairs; and what appearance would the count-out have to the people out of doors, when on an important question it was understood that a noble Lord, known to be the whipper-in of the House, was seen actively exerting himself to secure a count-out, and ultimately succeeded in his purpose? He did not wish to make any attack on the Government in the matter; indeed, the blame was equally due to Gentlemen on his side of the House; but he thought the dignity of the House and its duty to the public would have been better consulted if hon. Gentlemen on both sides had remained in their places.

rose to protest against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, that it was the duty of the Government to keep a House on all occasions, because he thought such a rule would prevent individual Members from attending in their places as they ought; and he thought the privilege of counting out as important a privilege as any other, because it enabled the public to see what the questions were that excited no interest in that House, and prevented many Members, who were absent during the debate, from' coming in late and voting upon questions which no one could pretend their minds were prepared for deciding. Could any one say that those who were absent when the attack was made in his elaborate speech on this difficult and complicated subject, by the noble Earl, and when the conduct of the Government was defended by Her Majesty's Ministers, could be able to tell what it was that they were voting for? He confessed he was surprised to see the noble Earl, with his experience in that House, get up and make a grave charge because he had been counted out. The best thing he could have done under the circumstances was to put the ridicule quietly in his pocket; for he was only continuing the laugh against himself by making a charge against his (Mr. V. Smith's) noble Friend for the performance of, no doubt, his duty. Where a person brings forward a Motion that does not sufficiently interest the House, or his speech is not considered sufficiently attractive, he is always liable to such a proceeding. But it was not the duty of the Government to keep a House for an adverse Motion; and the noble Earl himself knew that to be the rule. [The Earl of LINCOLN: I have said so before, several times over.] But the noble Earl's own followers were not sufficiently numerous to make a House; and the best thing he could do was to let the matter pass, without saying anything further on the subject.

was anxious, before a new subject came on, explicitly to declare that he had no knowledge of the intention to count out the House the previous evening, and must express his strong disappointment at what had taken place; but as the noble Earl had kindly exempted him from all participation in the charge, he would totally pass by the imputations that had been cast elsewhere. But he was bound to state, after what had been stated against his noble Friend the Member for Evesham, that he had himself particularly observed that, except during the early part of the noble Earl's speech, not more than twenty-five Members altogether were present for a very long period. He had been on a Committee all day himself, and on leaving it he went down to the Colonial Office to procure such papers as he thought might be necessary to answer the speech of the noble Earl; but the count-out that took place took him entirely by surprise.

was of opinion that no business ought to be proceeded with unless 200 Members at least were present. Not that he approved of the course taken last night; but he wished to call the House's attention to the practice in Committees, of the clerk, whenever a quorum was not present, calling the notice of the chairman to the fact, when the business was stopped. Now, if the House adopted an analogous rule to the rule in Committees, he thought the business of the country would go on better, greater attention would be secured to questions of high public interest, and there would be less loss of public time. Whenever the subject of the Estimates was brought before the country, the crying evil was that there was an instantaneous rush made out of the House by hon. Members; and, for his part, when that was the case, he should like to put a stop to any further votes of public money till the attendance present was adequate to secure proper control. In the United States, and in other countries, in all their popular legislative assemblies, one half of the members must be present before the business could be gone on with; and if that excellent rule were adopted here, they would have that House full of Members who came there to do the business of the nation, and not for other purposes. He hoped that the time was not far distant when they would be able to get rid of all the useless Members, by compelling every Member to attend in his place or give up his seat. He did not think the noble Earl, because he happened to have what they called a high standing in that House, ought to obtain more attention for his Motions than other hon. Members who might not rank so high there. They ought to be all equal there; and although they could not enforce an attendance, yet every Motion brought forward should be allowed a fair hearing.

Subject dropped.

said, he had considered the Bill for simplifying the mode of carrying into effect the exemption of literary societies and mechanics' institutions from local taxes, but there were two portions of it to which he entertained considerable objections. The first, with respect to the mode prescribed for adjusting disputed facts, which he considered would give rise to considerable litigation; and the second, with respect to the establishment of an office under the Act, and the payment of fees for registration. He was not prepared to give any pledge on the part of the Government as to the course they intended to take in regard to this measure.

wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he objected to the principle propounded by the societies, and whether the Government would undertake to bring in a Bill to effect the object of the societies without the creation of the new office?

said, perhaps there might be persons looking out for the new office. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would be willing to introduce the Bill without that clause.

said, that he would do all he could to promote a measure which did not contain the clauses to which he objected; but whether the Government would think it expedient to introduce the measure was another question. He could not say whether such a measure would be introduced or not.

Subject dropped.

said, that in order to make the question he was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade intelligible, he must read a few passages from the despatch of the Earl of Elgin of the 12th of May, 1848, which had been laid on the table of the House. The Earl of Elgin observed—

"The advantage to the colonists in the British market afforded by means of protecting duties, generally enabled them to overlook the disadvantages of having the markets of the United States closed to them by duties levied in that country in favour of native productions."

And in the same despatch his Lordship said—

"Connected with this subject of the free navigation of the St. Lawrence west of Quebec, which the Americans are desirous to procure, is a corresponding desire on the part of the Canadian farmers to avail themselves of the American home market whenever it affords superior prices to those derived from exportation to Europe. The price of wheat and flour in the eastern States intended for home consumption is often much higher than the price in Canada for exportation. When this happens to be the case, it would be an immense advantage to the Canadian agriculturist could be export his produce for consumption in the United States. This, however, he is prevented from doing by a protecting duty of a quarter of a dollar a bushel upon wheat."

There were several passages in the same despatch, all tending to recommend that in establishing a free navigation of the St. Lawrence, a treaty should be formed with the United States providing for the removal of their protective duty.

said, that he was sorry to be obliged to rise to order. No doubt all on that (the Ministerial) side of the House felt a deep interest in this question.

There is a question before the House.

was sorry to have offered an interruption.

, in continuation, said, that if the hon. and learned Member had waited a little, he would have seen the necessity for making these remarks, in order to make the questions which he wished to found upon them intelligible. The questions he had to ask were, what answer had been returned to those representations of the Canadian Government; and what steps, if any, had been taken to secure the realisation of objects so forcibly pressed on Her Majesty's Government?

observed, that although he had been aware that some question would be addressed to him, he was not exactly aware of the precise nature of it. But he might state generally that the Government had received representations from the British North American colonies, setting forth the great importance of establishing a system of free trade with respect to those articles which constituted the great bulk of the produce exchanged between the United States and themselves, and that to adopt any system of customs duties would be attended with inconvenience. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Government had returned an answer to these representations, that they would be glad to co-operate in facilitating this object. A Bill had been introduced in the Congress of the United States on the subject, hut had not been proceeded with simply on account of the lateness of the Session. The subject would not be lost sight of, and the American Government would be advised, in every way, of the disposition of the Go- vernment to facilitate the important object of establishing a free intercourse for articles of produce across the borders.

inquired what answer had been returned?

would inquire.

Subject dropped.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there had been any correspondence between the Government and foreign Powers with regard to the effect of the alteration in the law on the definition of "national vessels" in our commercial treaties with those countries?

replied, that the communications to foreign Governments with respect to the alterations effected in the navigation laws had been laid on the table of the House. There had been no subsequent communications.

would then state what had occurred to him on this subject. There were now numerous treaties with foreign States, by which equality of privilege, with respect to national vessels, was stipulated for and given by both sides. The effect of that stipulation was to make each State a party to the definition of national vessels on either side. That principle was fully recognised. In a number of treaties of ours particular relaxations had been introduced by our consent, and in very express terms, with respect to the vessels of other States. In the treaty of Guatemala, it was provided that for a certain number of years ships need not be manned by the native population, or built at Guatemala, but only owned by the people of that place. It therefore appeared to him that foreign Powers who held those treaties were entitled to consider that as the legal definition of a national vessel. What he desired to he assured of was, could we, under the changes which had been introduced, and under the treaties as they stand, claim such vessels as national vessels?

replied, without entering into the legal question of construction, that the operation of the Navigation Bill just passed had been purposely deferred for some months, in order that any question of the kind might be maturely considered, and to permit of such communications with foreign Powers as might he necessary.

Subject dropped.

said, he could assure the House that he approached this very difficult question with much anxiety. He said it was a difficult question, because though he was satisfied that the authorities against the adoption of this measure were conclusive, yet he could not conceal from himself the fact, that there were many whose motives he could not impugn, who differed from him in the view he took of the question, and there was a great difficulty in obtaining for it a calm and a dispassionate consideration. For his own part he deprecated the discussion of it altogether; but it having been pressed upon him, and such a question having been opened, he thought it due to the question, to the public, and to the House, that it should be fully and calmly debated. The commissioners in their report stated that the great difficulty in grappling with the subject was, that the opinion of a large portion of the people of this country was founded in a great measure on a vague and rather uninformed assumption that they are prohibited by God's word, than on a mature examination either of the Scriptures or of the law of the Church. Now he was one of those who concurred with the large portion of the people of this country in thinking that these marriages were prohibited by the Scriptures, and he trusted he could show also that they were opposed to sound policy. In the consideration of this question they should divest themselves of all bias. He had had the advantage of reading a very important letter, addressed to Principal Macfarlane, and he took that letter to embody the views of those who promoted this Bill. It was there argued that this was not a question of compulsion, but of permission. He thought there were three propositions which those who supperted this Bill were bound to establish. They were bound to show that the prohibitions were not required by the law of God, or by the real principles of Christianity; and, lastly, that the general interests of society would be more advanced if these marriages were allowed, than if they were prohibited. These were the propositions on which this question must turn; and if he was right, he was in a position to remove them. With regard to the Levitical law, it was argued that it was not binding; and the commissioners not only repudiated the Levitical law as not binding, but as assisting these marriages, and they contended that so far from being prohibited, these marriages were inferentially allowed. As respected the Levitical law, the injunctions given were framed for good and obvious reasons; for the injunctions were founded on a basis which went to the very structure of society generally. The injunctions in the chapter were binding on Christians and upon the whole family of the Christian world. They were not permissive to the people to whom they were addressed, but to all the people of Christendom. It was in the institution of marriage that we had a relationship of a closer character than that by blood alone. The Lord had declared that a man should forsake his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife. Then he would approach the xth chapter of Leviticus. He observed that one of the five witnesses whose evidence was included in the report of the commissioners assumed that the argument of those who were opposed to this measure founded their opinion upon the 18th verse of the xviiith chapter of Leviticus. Thus a rev. gentleman, a minister of the Church, said—

"The view of those who contend for the prohibition rests, I think, on the 18th verse of the xviiith chapter of Leviticus, 'Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life-time.'"

That, he thought, was a fallacy. He thought that the 6th verse was that on which the question turned; and the subsequent verses enabled anyone to expound its meaning. The 6th verse prohibited intercourse with those who were near of kin. He contended that no one could take the subsequent verses without seeing that that verse embraced affinity as well as consanguinity, in cases implied as well as expressed. The chapter in Leviticus specified the various prohibitions in respect to marriages; it spoke of the prohibition as between mother and son, but omitted to put the case of father and daughter. But silence was here the more significant. In the 14th verse there was a prohibition against a marriage with a father's brother's wife, or "she is thine aunt." Then they had the prohibition in respect to mo- thers, daughters, and grandmothers, as near of kin, and by legal implication they had affinity as a bar. The chapter included lineal and collateral branches as to whom marriage was impossible; and in regard to the collateral branch, it applied to those who might be supposed to be associated together on terms of domestic intimacy. Now, the 18th verse was that upon which the argument was attempted to be answered, and was thus defined. But did the 18th verse apply to the 6th verse? If, then, it did, did it or did it not apply to the wife's sister, as next of kin? But polygamy, if permitted, would not include the wife's sister. It appeared that in reference to this question the authority of Dr. Chalmers had been given to the world by Dr. Lee:—

"That learned person (Dr. Chalmers) did not speak of the general principle involved in the xviiith chapter of Leviticus. Dr. Chalmers had, on receiving several ecclesiastical appointments, signed the Confession of Faith , and thus he virtually condemned such a supposition as that he favoured the opinion sought to be attributed to him. Besides, he (Dr. Lee) knew Dr. Chalmers' deliberately expressed judgment to be the very opposite. He considered that parties marrying within the forbidden degrees should not be in communion with the Church."

He now came to a stronger view of the question—namely, the manner in which it ought to be considered under the Christian dispensation, under which there had been introduced a different system from that which existed under the dispensation of the Jews. It provided for a system of moral purity. Having regard to the principle of prohibition, how much greater was the restriction derived from the principles of Christianity than from the prohibition of the Jewish law! Many erroneous views with regard to marriages were corrected by Christianity. Polygamy and the facilities for divorce were corrected by that system. He believed the tendency of the Bill was to lower the relations of marriage, to destroy that character which it was one of the objects of Christianity to elevate and purify; and, inasmuch as marriage was at the very foundation of society, it was the duty of Christians to vote against such a measure. The effect of Christianity was to elevate and chasten the feelings and sanctity of domestic life. On this point, an American authority, Chancellor Kent, said—

"Under the influence of Christianity, a purer taste and stricter doctrine have been inculcated, and an incestuous connexion between an uncle and niece has been recently adjudged by a great master of public and municipal law to be a nuisance extremely offensive to the laws and manners of society, leading to endless confusions, and the pollution of the sanctity of private life."

Now, the case of the niece was not expressed in the chapter. It rested upon implication, and was fortified by the principles of Christianity, founded on express precept and parity of reasoning. And we were now asked to recede from the point to which society had been advanced by a legitimate development of Christian principle. It was important to consider how any change would operate upon individual character, and upon the most important element of society—family life. Amongst those who met on terms of domestic intimacy, it was necessary that their intercourse should be placed above the reach of suspicion. By the aid of pure principles within, and restriction of form without, a barrier was raised against the conception of impurity. The removal of that barrier would interfere with family life, and do a positive injury to Society. In the early period of Christianity, it had great difficulties to deal with with regard to social organisation. That sect of the Jews which relied entirely upon the text of Scripture, and rejected all tradition, held the case of the wife's sister to be within the prohibited degrees. It was satisfactory to find that those of the Jews who adhered strictly to the word of God, agreed with the reformed churches, which had taken the word of God as their standard. The Grecian law and the Roman law prohibited such intercourse, as did also the law of the Koran. Observations had been made with regard to the Church of Rome, and the Papal law with regard to marriage. They did not rely upon it as a prohibition by the word of God, because, if they had admitted that, their dispensations could not have been brought to bear. But why did they prohibit the marriage? Why was dispensation necessary? It showed that they considered the allowance as the exception—the prohibition as the rule. In the year 790, when the Irish Church was a pure church, and abjured the authority of the Church of Rome, a canon was in force excommunicating the man who married his wife's sister. Let the House consider how the question had been dealt with in England and Scotland. What course did the Reformers take? They appealed to the word of God. The Church became pledged upon the subject, and the "Table of Degrees" became one of the canons of the Church, and was publicly promulgated. That state of things had continued to the present time. Jeremy Taylor referred in terms to the canon of 1603, which states that these marriages are prohibited by the word of God. Was it, then, to be left to individual men to differ with the church to which they belong; and were clergymen to be allowed to marry persons who would not be considered by the rest of the church as lawfully married? If this should be allowed, it would completely derange the principles of society'. It was necessary that one basis should be allowed by all men. This was required by the exigencies of human society. There ought to be one basis alone. That basis ought not to be narrowed to a more strict limit than was necessary. But it was of the greatest importance that a civil sanction should not be given to a marriage which would not be regarded by the great body of the people as in accordance with their religious convictions. In the year 1836, when the Marriage Act was passed, the Dissenters did not take that view of the question which was now advocated by some few of their body who were not remarkable for their attachment to the Established Church. He did not know any one in Ireland who was favourable to the Bill. And what was the opinion of the Church of Scotland? The Church of Scotland, to her honour, presented an unbroken front on the question. He admitted that some doubt existed in the minds of professional men in that country, and amongst them it might perhaps be treated as an open question. But with regard to the Church and the laity of Scotland, he believed they were as determined as men could be to take their stand upon a clear conviction of the truth of their basis. In 1560, the jurisdiction of the Pope was extirpated from Scotland. The earliest authority on the subject is the Act of 1567, passed shortly after the Reformation in Scotland. It ordains that marriage "shall be as lawful and as free as the law of God has permitted the same." It also declares that—

"Those of the second degree (by which is meant cousins german) of consanguinity and affinity, and all degrees outwith the same contained in the word of the eternal God, and that are not repugnant to the said word, might lawfully marry."

Then came the Confession of Faith , which was ratified and approved by the Act of 1690, passed on the occasion of the Revolution, and establishing the Presbyterian Church in Scotland:—

"Marriage ought not to be within the degree of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as these persons may lire together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in Wood than her own."

When it was stated in the report that the majority of the laity of England—that the whole of the people of Ireland, and the whole of the people of Scotland are opposed to the Bill upon deep settled religious conviction—considering the feelings that had been created under the present system, and that had been established for centuries, he could not conceive anything more perilous or impolitic than to agitate the public mind, and lead them to suppose that in what they have hitherto considered as standard truths they have been mistaken. In the year 1649 a statute was passed, ending in this manner:—

"Consanguinity and affinity impeding matrimony is contracted by them that are of kindred on either side, as well as by those that are of kindred on both sides, and by unlawful company of man and woman, as well as by marriage."

And it was the opinion of the highest legal authorities in Scotland that no clergyman could be found who, in the existing state of opinion on the matter, would consent to celebrate a marriage between them. At a meeting of the Church not long ago, Principal Lee mentioned a case where a man had married the sister of his former wife. He said he had never heard but one case of such marriage, and that it excited general disgust; and also, that so far as he was acquainted with ecclesiastical history, such a connexion was incestuous. There could be no doubt, then, that the most eminent divines held such marriages to be at variance with the law. In Herbert's translation of Grotius , 1580, he found that in affinity marriage is forbidden within the same degrees of consanguinity, and that a man may not marry his brother's widow or his wife's sister. He appealed on this subject to those who belonged to the Church to which he belonged. If ever there was a Church pledged to this interpretation of God's word, he would ask was not the Church of England so pledged, and was not the Church of Scotland equally pledged? When the Churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland were thus unitedly pledged to this interpretation of God's word, he would ask was it fair that it should be set aside for the convenience of a few individuals? And who were the persons who sought to overthrow the present system? A great deal had been said about the poor. Now, let not the House be deluded in this matter. This measure was not introduced for the sake of the poor, but for the benefit of a few interested persons. This was admitted on the face of the report, which stated—

"Of the marriages thus ascertained to have been contracted, very few were between persons in the poorer classes."

But that, on the other hand—

"Among the parties contracting these marriages, since as well as before the Act of 1835, there are found to be many persons of station and property, and of unimpeachable character and religious habits."

He confessed that the reading of that sentence almost took away his breath. Here were persons of station and property violating the law of man, and what was believed by the great body of the people to be the law of God. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton appealed to the compassion of the House with regard to the innocent offspring of these parties. It was clear that they had violated the law, both human and divine, speculating on contingencies for the legitimatising of their children; and under such circumstances he must deny the eulogium which was conferred upon them as persons of unimpeachable character and religion. On the partial examination which had taken place of a small portion of England by interested parties, the House was asked to pass this law—to come into conflict with what all legislatures and governments were anxious to respect—the moral and religious feelings of the enlightened classes of society. Those feelings were the bone and sinew of the country, and on them its greatness depended. The authority of other countries had been referred to; but what authority, on a question of Scriptural interpretation, could be higher than that of our own national Churches? With respect to America, it was stated by the highest authority, that, within several of the States, marriages within the Levitical degrees are made void by statute. He would now endeavour to consider the balance of social advantages on one side and the other. This might be considered in two points of view—as a question of fact and a question of speculation. Now, as a question of fact, he would ask, had the commissioners furnished such statistics with regard to the marriage law as to justify its alteration, and the introduction of this new provision? Their inquiry, which occupied less than three months, was limited to a comparatively small portion of England alone Now, this Bill was applicable to the whole of the united kingdom, and the report admitted the large body of the people to he opposed to the Bill. If he understood the argument on the other side, it was this—that the accommodation of the poor is so bad, that when a wife dies, and her sister undertakes the management of the children, it is a matter of general policy that a marriage should take place. And did not the same reason exist in Scotland and in Ireland? But he was proud to say, with respect to his own country, that he never had known or heard of a case of incest. It was said that legislation could not prevent illicit marriages; and inasmuch as we are not strong enough by statute to overcome vices, we ought to modify it. But he considered it a principle of sound legislation, having morality on our side, to endeavour to elevate the objects of it, and not to throw temptations in their way calculated to degrade them. The higher the standard of truth and purity was held, the more useful would it become; and so long as this was a Christian Legislature, it ought to legislate on Christian principles. It had been suggested that, as a doubt existed, such marriages ought not to be prohibited. In that opinion he entirely disagreed. But, suppose it were a doubtful question of Scripture, on which side would doubt place duty? If they might prohibit on the ground of general policy, then the doubt whether the marriage was sanctioned by God would permit the prohibition, but would not permit its sanction. He asked the House to consider what would be the effect of this Bill on the social feelings of the people? Would any female of delicacy tender her affectionate duty towards the children of her sister, when it would subject her to the suspicion of offering it as the condition of her becoming the wife of her sister's husband? How long a period was to elapse between the decease of the wife and the marriage of her sister? Was the coffin of the wife to be the altar before which the marriage of the sister was to be contracted? How many younger sisters had no other home than that of their married sister; and could any one doubt that the Bill would have a cruel operation as related to them? Such being the case, ought not the House to consider the effect which the Bill would have on society in general, and not on a small corner of it? He trusted, therefore, that the House would not depart from the practice—not of any particular Church—hut of the universal Catholic Church, which had Christ for its head, the Bible for its rule, and the Spirit for its guidance and aid.

felt how very unfit that House was to enter into a discussion of many of the topics which had been introduced into this discussion. He referred more particularly to what was called the religious view of the question, and how far the object of this Bill was prohibited by the express word of God or by clear implication. Of course no person Could address himself to the question without having made up his mind on that part of the subject. If it were so prohibited, directly or by implication, there was an end to the question. If it was not expressly prohibited, then there arose another point in the religious view of the question which he thought had received somewhat too little notice. It was a point held in great account by the early Reformers, namely, that the law of marriage ought to be free as the word of God had left it. There ought to be some very clear ground Stated before they proceeded to put a restriction on the law of marriage, when the law of God did not interfere. He had felt it his duty to inquire diligently into the religious bearing of the question, and he had investigated the whole matter; and he had come to the conclusion that the union of a husband with his deceased wife's sister was not forbidden by the express word of God. It was clear to his mind that it was incorrect to say that the Catholic Church, or the Church of England, or even the Church of Scotland, held that the Levitical law was obligatory, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had stated. The Catholic Church reserved the power of granting dispensations for these very marriages; and one of the doctrines of that church was, that they could not dispense with a law of God. The Church of England never maintained, nor did the law of England maintain, that these marriages were absolutely void. It maintained that they were voidable, but not void. If a marriage was not challenged by a certain period, in certain circumstances, the marriage was legal. Therefore the law of England made that condi- tionally legal which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was absolutely prohibited by the law of God. The law of Scotland, in this respect, was placed in a rather better position. It did not recognise the difference between void marriages and voidable marriages. If a marriage was against the law of God, it was void altogether by the law of Scotland. By the rule of Confession of Faith in 1569, nothing was said about a prohibition of those marriages; but in 1609 they were prohibited; and there was a law in existence by which marriages forbidden by the xviiith chapter of Leviticus, were to be considered an incest, and punished with death. But, nevertheless, he did not believe there was a single lawyer who would venture to indict parties capitally for such an offence. The statute law of Scotland was, however, perfectly clear if the construction of the xviiith chapter of Leviticus by the hon. and learned Gentleman were the true one. But while, on the one hand, there was this Scottish statute inflicting capital punishment, as he had stated, there was another statute expressly declaring that marriage should be as the law of God permitted. Therefore, if these unions were not prohibited by Leviticus, they were necessarily good marriages. The very object of the Reformers was to remove what they held to be intolerable in the Roman Catholic Church; namely, the imposition of restraints in the law of marriage which were different to those imposed by the law of God. The Confession of Faith had not been ratified by Parliament as a civil authority that could be moved in a criminal court for the infliction of a punishment, but simply as the confession of faith of the Church. As regarded the religious question, then, his opinion was that it was necessary to demonstrate the right of human legislation to deal with marriage, so as to throw impediments in the way of unions, which impediments did not exist by the law of God. If God, in his divine and revealed word, had so dealt with the law as to allow these unions to take place, he appealed to the House, in a religious sense, what right they had to place impediments in the way of them which God bad not? If his hon. and learned Friend was right in his construction of the xviiith chapter of Leviticus, he would find that if the principle was pushed to its full extent it did justify, as in fact it was made the foundation of, all those abuses in the Roman Catholic Church which it bad been the aim of the Reformers to remove. He knew how much averse his countrymen were to marriages such as those which would be allowed by the Bill; but the aversion which might exist in Scotland or in Ireland did not appear to him very important elements of consideration in passing such a law, because of all effects to be deprecated in legislation on this matter, this was the most to place impediments in the way of certain marriages in one country which did not exist in the other. But the aversion of the people of Scotland to these marriages was not to the union itself in the abstract. Supposing these marriages forbidden by Leviticus, then the people of Scotland would hold them in religious abhorrence. But, upon the principle of the Reformation itself, these restrictions had been got rid of; and he did not hesitate to say, that the foundation of the feeling of the people against these unions was every moment undermining. There was a growing conviction among all parties in the country, that these marriages were not forbidden by the word of God; and with the growth of that conviction the abhorrence of them must necessarily decline and disappear, because there was no other foundation for it than the belief of these unions being against God's law. He was half inclined to allow—if the question concerned only the higher classes of society—that there was so much beauty in the social relation, so much charm in the particular connexion between a wife and her sister, upon whom probably, in the event of death, would devolve the care of the children, that it would be unwise to destroy it. He was not blind to these considerations; but he could not consent to legislate upon a question involving the relation of marriage and the happiness of families with reference only to one particular class, and that the smallest in the community. In spite of the laws which had been passed, the people had been examining the Scriptures for themselves—they were satisfied that this connexion was not forbidden—they had formed an independent opinion; and, holding that opinion, they asked where was the reason and justice and religious sanction of a law that cast impediments in the way of a marriage which God had left free? They regarded the law as cruel, tyrannical, and irreligious; and they made for themselves these unions, which, stamped how they might be by some men, they regarded as not unholy in the sight of God, and which they deemed themselves most religiously, most morally, and most chastely entitled to form. And it was with reference to the feelings of these persons that the commissioners had introduced those words which the hon. and learned Gentleman said had almost taken his breath away—that persons in the middle and lower classes who formed these connexions were not of dissolute or abandoned lives, not disobeyers of the law, but people of chaste and moral habits and of deep religious feeling, but who violated the law because they conscientiously thought it against the Scripture, and believed these marriages to be good in the sight of God. This brought him to the consideration whether it was a wise state of the law which left people of this character habitually to disobey the law, and which brought constantly into their view the contrast between the enactments of the Legislature and their interpretation of the word of God. The learned Lord having apologised to the House for having so long trespassed upon them, concluded by saying, that upon these grounds he should support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that if the learned Lord Advocate who had just sat down, speaking, as he had, with so much ability and so much authority on this question, had felt it necessary to apologise for having detained the House by his observations, how much more requisite was it that he (Mr. Gladstone) should request their indulgence, aware, as he was, that there were many Gentlemen who were naturally anxious to arrive at a conclusion on this subject. But the importance of the question was so great, and the changes of which it threatened to be the forerunner in our social system were so many, and likely to be so permanent, that time gained now would be in reality lost by anything short of a full consideration. He admitted he should feel the force of one appeal made by the learned Lord, if he thought he was correct in the facts. The learned Lord had said candidly that, with respect to one class of society, the balance of advantage was against the change—[" No, no!"]—or, at any rate, he said that many of the arguments introduced to recommend the measure were to his mind powerful reasons against it. But the learned Lord said they must not legislate for them as being the most limited class in society. He appealed to the House to consider their case, however, and he appealed with tenfold augmented force to the House to consider the case of the lower classes of society. Yet it appeared to him that all the arguments of the learned Lord were pointed, if to any class, to the middle class. And the arguments and explanations which determined it for the upper class were applicable to the middle class. But how stood it with the poor? Had the effect of the Bill upon the poor been to kindle this degree of feeling?—had the effect of their legislation led them to examine the Scriptures upon this question?—and had they come to the conclusion, that the legislation of that House had been wrong?—and, with a strong feeling did they now maintain the opinion that those marriages, being legitimate, in their opinion of the meaning of the highest authority upon the subject, ought to be legalised by human law? He asked the advocates of the Bill, and the asserters of this state of things, whether they had more evidence than that which was supplied by the report, and evidence of the Committee, for there they had only 1,600 cases, gathered together by the most diligent inquiry, extended throughout the country? Those cases were divided into five classes. The first class contained mayors of towns; the second, magistrates, barristers, and attorneys; and the third, clergymen. Those three classes he would constitute into one; the middle class he would make the second; and the labouring poor, mechanics and such like, he would place in the third class. Now, how did the House think the cases thus brought together in support of the Bill were divided? Why, the 1,648 cases of marriage adverted to in the commissioners' report were divided—for the middle classes, 1,503; for the upper classes, 105; and the whole number occurring among the lower classes was only 40. He should not enter upon the question started by the learned Lord in his able speech, which he submitted to the House after an elaborate investigation of the law of Scotland, and which, however important it might be, were this matter to come to judicial issue before the tribunals of the country, had yet not much bearing on the question now in the consideration of the House, whether or not they should be justified in altering the present law of England. Yet he was somewhat surprised at the coarse pursued by the learned Lord in his argument, for he admitted that there was one statute of Scotland which prohibited the marriages solemnised within the Levitical degrees under pain of death; but he said there was another statute of Scotland which prohibited those marriages, but not under pain of death. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Oh, no!] He begged pardon, but reminded the learned Lord that he had spoken of those statutes. [The LORD ADVOCATE: No, no!] He would ask whether the law of Scotland ratifying the Confession of Faith , which declared those marriages null, was not another statute? The learned Lord afterwards proceeded to show that no one concluding such a contract could escape the Scotch law, which punished the crime capitally. But what did he say for the law of England? Why, he said it only declared it voidable, and not void. But he (Mr. Gladstone) wished the House should distinctly understand, before acceding to the argument of the learned Lord in reference to the English law, whether that law did not treat with the same feeling all other incestuous relations, or whether it placed this case apart from the others as peculiar in its character. Because, the learned Lord said, we shall legalise such marriages, and so far alter the defective state of the law; but he must remind him that the same law in the same way treated all other cases of incest, some of them too revolting even to mention, and none of them admitting of doubt as to their criminality. As for the parties more especially interested in this Bill, he should carefully avoid, in anything he said, giving utterance to what would be painful to their feelings, for they were parties, in his opinion, who had been grievously misled; but knowing how liable to error was human judgment, and it might be no more than such error in them, he must think their feelings ought to be sacred against all adverse criticism. But the learned Lord said that many religious persons had disobeyed this law. That was not a fair statement of the case; yet he would not examine into the character of those whose cases had been got together by the commissioners, for he should only call upon the House to observe in regard to those who had disobeyed the law, and he knew some at least of that number bore excellent characters; but whatever were their characters, they were a very small minority in the class to which they belonged. Were they then to alter the law to meet the views of an extremely small minority of any class, whatever that class to which they belonged might be? On what ground was it that his hon. and learned Friend urged them to such an effort of legislation? This was not a question affecting the civil liberty of the subject. At least it was not so treated, although, under different circumstances, it might be so viewed. He would suppose a case, though it was not a true one. He would suppose, however, for illustration, that the Roman Catholics were in a body to come before the House, and say, "We do not agree with those who support the law as it stands, we have our own religious system, we have our dispensations, and we will not have the obstructions imposed by this law." This or any other body of Dissenters might come, and by their dogmas show that it touched their civil liberty; they might say, for example, that the bastardising of the issue was a civil penalty attending that which their own system might teach them to view as other than a crime. He was only supposing cases which might probably occur. But the real question which the House had to deal with was, whether they were to alter the law of England, and, with it, whether they were prepared to alter the law and doctrines of the Church of England indirectly? [ Cheers. ] He perceived that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buteshire had not forgotten the bearing his Bill might have upon the Church of England; and herein was another mark of his good feeling. He had introduced a clause into the Bill providing that no clergyman should be prosecuted for refusing to solemnise those marriages. What then did his right hon. and learned Friend effect by this? He did not alter the law of the Church; he left the law of the Church of Scotland and of England contained in the Confession and in the Canons binding upon clergymen, but left no means of enforcing it; he left it in foro conscientiœ . If the clergyman obeyed the Act, well; but if not, he Was not to be punished. Was that a position in which the clergy ought to be placed? They did not do away the law, hut they destroyed its sanction; and they said to the clergyman who had given his solemn promise to obey it, "Very well, hut you will not be punished for a breach of it." He observed that his right hon. and learned Friend, in his letter to the Rev. Dr. Macfarlane, said—

"Though the Bill contains a provision for exempting all persons from temporal penalties for celebrating this marriage, it also gives protection to those who, from conscientious scruples, refuse to solemnise the rite, and does not interfere with any spiritual censures not requiring the secular arm of the courts to enforce them."

It did not interfere with spiritual censures not requiring the secular arm. But what would be the effect of the interference? Suppose a beneficed clergyman; and suppose that according to the laws of the Church of England, by virtue of which he held his benefice, he were guilty of disobedience; he received a letter from the Bishop of London, suppose; but whether under this Bill he would be punished for his disobedience, or the Bishop censured for his interference, he knew not; but this he did say, it was perfectly absurd to leave a clergyman at liberty to disobey the law while he continued to hold his benefice in the church whose laws he was transgressing. But what then was the great principle involved in this Bill with respect to ecclesiastical legislation generally? For they were called upon by a vote of that House to determine, at least so far as the obedience of every individual clergyman was concerned, that what was the law of the Church throughout the kingdom should be observed. What was the law of the Church, and what was the difference between this Bill and that law? The prohibition of marriage in certain cases was a mere ecclesiastical prohibition, and both before and after the Reformation all laws merely ecclesiastical affected clergymen alone. This, however, was not an ecclesiastical prohibition, for the law on the subject professed to declare the word of God. The Church could add no authority to it, could annex no sanction to the prohibition. She only declared by her 99th canon, that it was no prohibition of ecclesiastical authority, but a declaration of the word of God. Here was the canon:—

"No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the laws of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority, in the year of our Lord God, 1563."

Let the House look at this. What more could be done by the Church than declare that this prohibitory law was the truth of God? It was said, in an age not over religious, by a worthy ancestor of his, that the people had taken the word out of the commandments, and put it into the creed; but he should say, if this Bill were to pass into a law, the consequences which it must draw after it would be to bring the whole religious belief of the subject within the sole vote of Parliament. He thought the Bill was most dangerous to our conscientious freedom, and most absurd so far as regarded the means of discussion in that House. His right hon. and learned Friend would not suppose that he was im- puting to him any blame for the consequences of this kind which might follow the passing of the Bill; hut he did think they were consequences which would ensue if the principle once received the covert but effectual sanction of that House. Several hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in this debate had stated that they would forbear to enter upon the religious portion of the discussion. He could well understand how such individuals as the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had made up their minds that there was no religious prohibition binding upon their conscience, could pass that part of the question by unnoticed. Considering, however, that the Bill was opposed by many on the ground that it was opposed to the word of God, he could not approve of their leaving that portion of the discussion untouched; and although he acknowledged his own incapacity to deal with it, he yet must state to the House that it appeared to him to be a religious prohibition binding them to refuse their sanction to the Bill. His assertion was, that the marriage of a man to his wife's sister, was contrary to the law of God, declared for three thousand years and up-wards. He found, in the first place, that it was prohibited to the Jews in the xviiith chapter of Leviticus, but prohibited to them in a sense not peculiarly applicable to the Jews only, but applicable to the nations of the world. For they were told in that very chapter that the crimes of the people whom the Jews were then going to dispossess of their land had brought down upon them the condign punishment of God; and among the other incestuous acts charged upon these nations was this particular relation to be found in the catalogue. It was impossible to confine the prohibition to which he alluded to the Jewish nation, for the Canaanites were punished for offending against the law of God by this crime; but if it had been a law prohibitory to the Jews only, then it was not binding on the people of Canaan. But since they, too, were punished under this law, the inference was that it was of universal application to mankind. How stood criticism with regard to the passage? He concurred with his right hon. and learned Friend in the admirable speech which he had made upon this question. Look, then, to the chapter which had been so often resorted to, and look to the 6th verse of the chapter—

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord."

The words were, near of kin. Now he said that it was no mere probable argument—that it was not a mere inference which could not be removed from the effects of doubt—but it was an argument that admitted of proof, that the case of a wife's sister came within the meaning of those words. Then in the 6th verse the prohibition was absolute; marriage was prohibited between a man and those near of kin, and what it was necessary to show-was, that a man was near of kin to his wife's sister. He contended that in the very sense of these words, there existed that relation between the two parties, and to get at that relation he did not find it necessary to go through indirect affinities. He found that the relation was reached by two steps; the one the relation of a man to his wife; and the other of a wife to her sister. A man and his wife were one. He did not stop to inquire how that dogma stood to the case in question; he did not wait to declare whether it was mystical, or social, or civil: but this he said, that for the purposes of that chapter, and in the sense of that chapter, considered as containing the law of the question, a man and his wife were one. The 12th and 13th verses exhibited the sense in which the words of the law were used. Those verses are—

"Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: she is thy mother's near kinswoman."

He argued that as a father's sister and a mother's sister, so a sister to a sister were, in the word and sense of the chapter, "near of kin." The 6th verse, "You shall not approach to any one near of kin," was an absolute dogma; and all that followed, to the 18th verse inclusive, were but separate instances of particular cases of this grand prohibition. He held, then, that the arguments of the learned Lord had not touched upon the ground on which this prohibition rested. But he would ask what he made of the various doubtful versions which were given of the 18th verse? As he had been already told, there were thirty-five cases of the expression found in the 18th verse being made use of in a similar sense in other parts of Scripture, and there were thirty four instances where it merely signified "like to like," or one woman to another, the rendering which was found in the margin, showing at least that it was of equal authority with the text. However, he should pass by that, not choosing to build any argument where there was room for doubt. But this he repeated, that there was no other mode of adjustment than the one he had already pointed out by taking the 6th verse as absolute, and what followed as particular cases of disobedience to the same grand prohibition. Again, it was admitted that the practice amongst the ancient Jews was to prohibit this connexion to their nation. The Rev. Mr. Jenkins, a witness who had been produced by the friends of the Bill, said that the Jews did not practise these marriages:—

"It appears, however, that the traditional law of the Jews did exclude the marriage of two sisters in succession, but whether upon the ground of this passage, or upon some more general law, does not clearly appear."

When he spoke of practice, he meant legal practice. But, he asked, what was the character of the Jews in this respect? were they a people likely to impose upon themselves this restraint? They had authority for saying that the whole tendency of that people was to relax the restraints imposed by divine law, because they had evidence unimpeachable in the rebukes which our Lord administered to them during his personal ministry on earth—in regard to the marriage relations especially. He argued, therefore, if the tendency of the people was such, while they at the same time retained a legal restraint of this character, the law was not human which they received and retained with this sacred severity—it was imposed on them by the authority of God. But it might be said, "You are not to take anything for binding, because it is written in Leviticus; else, if you admit one, on the same principle you admit all that is found there to be binding still." In reply to that, he said it was necessary, first, to ascertain the subject-matter of the passage, and, secondly, how it had been regarded in time following. They were aware of the interpretation inserted in the Septuagint version—made, in all probability, 277 B. C.—for the 23rd verse of the xxviith chapter of Deuteronomy. It was this, "Cursed is he who lieth with the sister of his wife. And all the people shall say Amen." But that might be considered an interpolation. What, however, they had to rely upon mainly were the doctrines of the apostles of the Christian Church. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as if it were the object of those who opposed the measure to narrow the rule which ex-eluded the conjugal relation. On the contrary, the bearing of the argument of analogy was entirely the other way. It was clear that, in the transition from the Jewish to the Christian dispensation, all restraints affecting marriage, as to the' choice of the person, must become, not more relaxed, but more strict; because the nature of marriage, being more elevated under the Christian dispensation, justified and required the maintenance of the prohibition. But he held that the prohibition was cared for in the New Testament by the decrees of the apostles themselves. The xvth chapter of Acts distinctly stated that certain portions of the Jewish institutions were to be cared for, and form part of the Christian law; and among those portions of the Jewish institutions there was described the general term of ; to which it was impossible to attach any rational signification unless it was one equivalent to the prohibition of marriages, as known to the Jewish law, within the Levitical degrees. Then we were told that the civil law of the Roman empire was adverse to these marriages, and that the Christian Church became, in consequence, also adverse to them. It was impossible to make a statement more opposed to every rational view of the case; because, in the first place, the prohibition was enforced in the time of the apostles; and, in the second, it was ludicrous to suppose the Roman law was the means of imposing upon the Christian Church a stricter system with regard to marriage. It was obvious, that in the later periods of Rome, down to Constantine, the law of marriage was of a different character. How, then, did the prohibition come? From Christian sources; and it was not necessary to rest it upon the councils of the third century, for it was established in the customs and practice of the church; and being established in the customs and practice of the church, it would naturally attach to the law of the empire when the governing power was Christian instead of heathen. It was admitted, that from that period the ease, as to history, was pretty clear; indeed, there could be no doubt that it had from that time through many centuries continued to be the universal and unbroken law of the Christian Church. The practice of the Greek Church maintained it at the present day in the greatest strictness; and the practice of the Roman Church testified that such was the law of the Christian Church. But if we were to speak of the dispensations practised in the Roman Church as being of force sufficient to overthrow the authority of the law with which it dispensed, let one point be recollected—let it be recollected that the evidence of ecclesiastical dispensations dated entirely from those ages of the church when political corruption and administrative abuses were at their highest point, and when the whole machinery of the church had the greatest amount of corruption in it. It was about the period of Innocent III. that the practice of dispensation came in; and the practice of dispensation in these particular cases dated from the example of Alexander VI., one of the greatest monsters who ever filled a conspicuous situation in the history either of the Church or of the world. It was unnecessary for him to enter into the opinions of the Reformers, either of this or any other country, as it was undisputed that they believed these marriages prohibited by the Scriptures as received in all time. He had observed already how very light appeared to be the authority of the modern Jews upon this question. The authority of the ancient Jews was not for but against the proposition of his right hon. and learned Friend; and his right hon. and learned Friend's witness—the most learned man who had been produced to sustain and strengthen the case—stated that the traditional laws of the Jews were against the practice, and that he questioned whether they were not founded upon the texts in Leviticus. But he (Mr. Gladstone) disclaimed the authority of the Jews upon this question altogether. He contended there could not be a greater logical inconsistency than for Christians to accept the modern testimony of Jews as in 'any degree whatever a criterion of the sense of Holy Scripture. If he were to take the testimony of Jews as a criterion of the sense of Holy Scripture, how far were we to carry the principle? We began our profession by believing that they had altogether failed to attain the sense of Holy Scripture in those points which were most vital and essential, and that, at this day, they were unable to comprehend the very truths of which they had so long been the guardians. That being so, there was not the least reason to follow their interpretation upon one or more particular passages from the Mosaic law. What, then, was the authority with which the opponents of this measure were pressed? With the authority of the modern practice of the Church of Rome, and of certain Protestant States. His right hon. and learned Friend, and others who supported the Bill, were, most of all, fond of dealing with the practice in the United States of America. Now, he wished his right hon. and learned Friend to observe, in the first place, a manifest distinction in the precedents that were quoted. In the United States of America the precedents were exclusively not of alterations in the religious character of marriage, but of the mere legalisation of the civil contract. Not a single case had been quoted by his right hon. and learned Friend, as to America, of marriages having been dealt with as any other than civil contracts. But the question of civil contracts, and legitimatising issue, was not the question now submitted to the House. He did not, however, attach much weight to the authority of the United States of America upon this matter, because the most formidable relaxations had there been introduced into the law of marriage. What would his right hon. and learned Friend say of this fact, that there were certain States in America in which the unlawful intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman was declared not to be adultery? That was a staggering fact. It showed an extraordinary state of opinion among a community where such a law could be enacted; and he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would bear it in mind when next he pressed the opponents of the Bill with the authority of the United States of America. So, also, with regard to Protestant States upon the Continent. He was not disposed to copy their example in this matter. We very often hugged ourselves in this country that they were found pursuing our laws and copying our institutions; but with regard to the sanctity of marriage and the observance of its obligations, he did not think the time had arrived for the people of this country to follow the example of any State whatever upon the Continent. He came now to the authority of the Church of Rome; and he must say, that the learned Lord who had preceded him had dealt with this part of the subject in a manner the most fallacious. The law of the Church of Rome, to begin with, was still against these marriages. And he begged to say, that the authentic sense of a great Christian body, particularly of a body so politic as the Church of Rome, was not to be taken from what were stated as extreme circumstances, which she had bound herself to permit, hut from that which she had continually and loudly declared. Such, he repeated, was her law; and what was her practice? In certain particular cases, such as England, where a small number of Roman Catholics were mixed with many other persuasions, upon account of this vexed question, she allowed these marriages. But why was it that the Irish Roman Catholics—and he honoured them for their conduct—were opposed to the change? Was there not a strong sentiment among the Roman Catholic community, wherever it existed, not merely in individuals dispersed through the mass, distinctly adverse to the formation of these marriages? His right hon. and learned Friend could not show that the Roman Catholics drew any distinction between these and other incestuous marriages. It had been said the Roman Catholic Church did not claim to dispense with the law of God; but she dispensed with it as to marriage in certain cases, and ergo in verbâ , such marriages did not appertain to the law of God. The Roman Catholic Church did not dispense with the law of God in the sense in which she understood it, hut she claimed to dispense with it as written in Leviticus. What was the law of God? That was the whole question. About that there could not be a doubt. Now, though the Roman Catholic Church claimed to dispense with the degrees as written in Leviticus, she disapproved of the dispensation in the highest degree. The Council of Trent had recorded an indication of the nature of these dispensations:—

"In secundo gradu nunquam dispensetur; nisi inter majores principes et ob publicam causam."

So that it was in the most urgent instances only, and for the greatest causes, that these dispensations were to be permitted. The proof, however, was positive and undeniable, that the Church of Rome did assume authority to dispense with the book of Leviticus. He need not remind the House of the ease of Henry the Eighth—the case of a brother's wife—and other instances of a similar kind, expressly forbidden in the book of Leviticus, in which the Church of Rome had dispensed. Although, therefore, she might be willing that we should consider her power and authority to relax obligations which every persuasion in Christendom considered binding, she had no authority to enable or assist the House to prove that the written word of God did not contain a prohibition of these marriages. There could be no doubt that at this moment something like five-sixths of Christendom observed the prohibition. It was their law, and it had been observed uniformly and constantly, whilst dispensations from it dated from a period of the grossest corruption. They were founded, as he had shown, upon the practices of men whose example ought to be a warning instead of an inducement for that House to follow. What, in the next place, was the argument advanced as to social interests? The records which the promoters of the Bill had furnished, would, he thought, put an end to the assertion that it was for the poorer classes of the community they were called upon to legislate. Nothing, he contended, could be clearer than that they were bound to the maintenance of the present law; and this had been set forward with great good sense by Mr. Tyler, in a document received by the commission. But what was the argument of the commissioners? To prove that it was unjust to interfere with natural liberty in this respect. With regard to the argument of natural liberty, that was disposed of by an appeal to the Divine law. But who were the parties that would be affected by the change? They were, in the first place, the very persons who wished to contract these forbidden marriages. It was open to him, he thought, to say it would be doing them but a left-handed favour to relax the Divine law, in order to enable them to make a contract which they considered for their interest. In a Parliamentary sense he would admit they must be considered the best judges of their interest, for the House was not entitled to impose upon them its sense of the Divine law merely because it commended itself to their conscience. But, after all, those who wished to contract these marriages were but a small proportion of the persons who would be affected by the change. He went, however, from this class to another. Take the case of the children of a first wife. The House was appealed to upon the ground of their interest. He received that appeal; and upon the grounds of that appeal he refused to assent to this Bill. No doubt the children of the first wife derived an inappreciable advantage from the care of the sister of their mother after her death. She stood to them in a natural relation, approved by God and man; and, mindful of the tenderness which united her to one now removed, she carried the over- flowings of her tenderness to the offspring of the beloved person who had been called away. But what was the effect of mixing with this natural relation a relation contrary to nature, as it had been considered for three thousand years? You introduced the character of stepmother, to mix with the character of the sister. Was the addition of the character of a stepmother, which was proverbial for the jealousy it stirred up, likely to increase the affection of the sister of the deceased for her children? On the contrary, by adding the new relation, you perverted the former one. You introduced cross feelings, cross interests, which were infinitely more likely—he did not say in all cases—to take away that attention which, under the law as it stood, could not fail to be bestowed upon the children. And what should be say of persons standing in the relation of widower and sister-in-law, who did not wish to marry? Were they to be entitled to no consideration? His right hon. and learned Friend did not wish to alter their relation; but would not their feelings be lowered, if not tainted, by the change which his right hon. and learned Friend invited the House to make? The words "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law," which were used in a colloquial sense, did but ill represent the idea they meant to convey. The sense of them was this—that brotherhood by affinity ought to be practically the same as brotherhood by blood; and he spoke a truth to which almost universal experience would bear testimony, when he said that brotherhood-in-law and sisterhood-in-law in this country was not a mere fiction of the law, but that it was realised in practice; and that they approached so nearly to relationship by blood, that, in the vast majority of cases, a practical distinction could not be drawn. If so, the House was required by it to exclude the possibility of marriage. He stood upon the general principle, that in all cases where age was suitable to a domestic relation, there ought to be no power to form a conjugal engagement. It was vain to tell him that laws could not control feelings. He admitted that laws were not the sole agent in the formation of social feelings; but they were a material auxiliary, and they had great effect in determining whether they should be promoted or discouraged. The principle that, where domestic relationship subsisted, conjugal relations should not be formed, lay at the root of the structure of society. By the domestic relation you knit individuals in families; by the conjugal relation you bound families together, and consolidated the whole fabric of social union. But if you permitted domestic and conjugal relations to be confounded, you aimed directly at the foundation upon which all Christian society was organised. It appeared to him that not only the intercourse of those who were widowers with their sisters-in-law, but the intercourse of all married men who were not widowers was threatened and menaced by the change which his right hon. and learned Friend proposed. Nay, more, even the purity of sisterly love itself, which afforded, perhaps, the most beautiful picture, when it was manifest in its perfection, which it was given to human eyes to witness upon earth, and was redolent of heaven more than any other object with which we could be conversant, was threatened to be tainted by the invasion of possible jealousies, if the House was led to accept this ill-omened proposal. He had only one more point to put. He wanted his right hon. and learned Friend to tell the House where this legislation was to stop? We had at this moment a law perfectly definite, for we stood upon the known and unchanged law of the land from time immemorial. We stood upon the public sentiment, uniform and universal in Scotland and Ireland, and general in England. We stood upon that which the great mass believed to be the declared and positive injunction of the word of God. We stood upon that which we know to have been for many centuries the uniform practice of Christendom, and which was the general practice of Christendom at the present hour. Such was the basis upon which we stood; and it was that basis which his right hon. and learned Friend was bound to show to be unsound. Upon what basis did his right hon. and learned Friend stand? What were the limits of the voyage which he invited the House to undertake? Who was the pilot to guide them? Were they to stand upon expediency, and say, because there was a multitude of these persons, it was safe to make this change, and they would be called upon for no more hereafter? He could understand that argument very well if the House was not dealing with a question of such deep solemnity, and if it was borne out by the facts. But he pressed his right hon. and learned Friend exceedingly for an answer to this question, because it was vitally important—where would be stop? If this Bill passed, would not another be introduced to meet other cases? His right hon. and learned Friend did not even now confine himself to cases of marriage with a wife's sister, for he proposed to provide for eases of marrying a wife's niece, as well as her sister. But there were, he apprehended, very few cases where a man wished to marry his wife's niece. He wished to know if his right hon. and learned Friend was prepared to take his stand on the letter of the Scripture? Did he mean to say, "I bind you to the letter of Leviticus, and to nothing else?" If his right hon. and learned Friend took that course, he would leave them open to the most horrible incests. There were throe cases of incest that excited the greatest horror in the mind when they were referred to. They were incest with the mother, with the daughter, or with the sister. Of these the first named was the only one that was prohibited in Leviticus. In the authorised translation the word "sister" was introduced, hut on reference to any other version except ours, it would be seen that the allusion was only to the half-sister, and that neither the full sister nor the daughter were mentioned in the book. He might be told that in this country the sentiment of horror which rose in the breast of every man when the crimes were mentioned, would be a sufficient protection against the principle being carried further. It was perfectly true that that sentiment of horror existed—it was sustained by the law of nature. But what was the law of nature? Would it be contended that the law of nature was a fixed and definite code, independent of the laws of religion? He would wish to know when the law of nature had been developed in that form? It was true that the law had always existed in one form or other—that there was always a feeling in the human heart repugnant to the commission of certain crimes. As Juvenal sung:—

"Naturæ imperio gemimus, cum funus adultæ Virginis occurrit, vel terra clauditur infans, Et minor igne rogi."

But how was the law of nature cherished and developed except by the law of religion? He would call upon the House to recollect that the law of nature depended on the law of Christianity. They could not keep the law of nature, and get rid of the law of religion. It was Christianity which showed what were the demands, the capacities, the obligations of nature, and therefore the answer to the question, "What was the law of nature?" depended on the answer to the previous question, "What was the law of Christianity?" If that were so, then his right hon. and learned Friend, in taking the law of Christianity, took also the law of nature. He did not mean that his right hon. and learned Friend would lead them to the horrors to which he had before alluded, or that any one present would live to see them legalised; but he knew that there were opinions entertained by some persons that went much farther than this Bill, and that the doctrine was held by some that there was no incest except in cases of consanguinity. He believed that if they allowed this Bill to pass, they should be assailed by other applications for a further extension of its principle. It was right to understand what the law relating to prohibited degrees was. In some instances there were two prohibitions contained under one head; but, separating these, he found that there were in all thirty-five cases of prohibition. Of these only seventeen were prohibited by Scripture, while the remaining eighteen were lying out of the letter of Scripture though provided by the Church. He did not mean that the law of the Church was wholly independent of the Scripture in these matters; but what he meant was, that these prohibitions were established by the Church, interpreting according to her functions the letter of the Scripture. He hoped that under these circumstances the House would not hesitate to reject this Bill—that it would on this question be disposed to respect the general sentiment of nearly the entire country—that it would not inflict upon the Church the misfortune of having anarchy introduced among its ministers; and he hoped that on similar grounds they would do all that in them lay to maintain the strictness of the obligations of marriage, and the purity of the hallowed sphere of domestic life.

replied. He said, that after the two remarkable speeches that had been delivered by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, and his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, he found the difficulties of his position, at any time of an overwhelming nature, much increased. But he believed that, after the decisive opinions that had been expressed, and the full manner in which the subject had been argued on both sides, it was now the wish of the House to express its decision on the merits of the case. Under these circumstances, and having already received the indulgence of the House while he had on a former occasion laid before it some portion of the arguments on which he maintained the justice of the measure, he would at present confine himself in his remaining observations to the briefest possible space. He had regretted much the delay that had already accompanied this measure; but it had at all events been attended with this advantage, namely, that it had tested by a most satisfactory issue the feelings of the country on the subject. Every effort had been made to excite public opinion against the Bill. Members of that House, of great respectability and of great personal weight, had attached their signatures to circulars that had been sent round; and the object clearly was, to induce the Church to excite the whole country to join in opposition to this Bill; and yet, with all these efforts, the petitions against the measure only contained 13,000 signatures, while those in favour of it had more than 30,000 signatures, besides the petitions that had been recently sent in, and that contained 7,000 or 8,000 signatures more, making nearly 40,000 signatures in all. And of these, with one remarkable exception—that of a petition containing 6,000 or 6,000 signatures—there was not one of them that had not the residence and occupation of the subscribers, proving that they contained the opinions of the thinking and educated classes of society. He held in his hand one of the circulars that had been sent out, and had been returned to him by the clergyman to whom it had been forwarded. It contained a form of petition recommended for adoption, and was accompanied by a circular signed by six Members of Parliament, all of great weight and influence. He believed that he was justified, from the tone of this circular, and other facts that had come to his knowledge, in saying that every possible effort had been made to excite the Church against this measure; but still only a very small number of clergymen could be induced to take part against the Bill, while a considerable proportion were in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge led the opposition to this Bill, and a petition from that university had been presented against it. But though, as they had been reminded, Cambridge was one of the universities that had been consulted about the marriage of Henry VIII., and that gave its opinion that the proposed marriage was against the word of God, it was remarkable that in their present petition they did not say one word as to the principle of this Bill being contrary to the Scripture. Besides, Dr. Phil-pots, one of the heads of houses, and who, he felt bound to add, was no relative of the bishop of that name, and three other heads of houses, voted in the minority. He should only say one or two words in vindication of his brother commissioners from the imputations that were cast upon them. It was said that all the witnesses with respect to the general question of the operation of this law, were more or less favourable to the change proposed. But the commissioners were appointed to investigate the claims of those who came to Parliament with grievances, and who sought redress; and they necessarily were called upon to state their complaints. But the commissioners invited every person who had an opinion to offer to come forward; and when the hon. Member for Dover put a question to him on the subject in private, he requested that the question might be repeated in public, and on that occasion he stated openly in the House how the entire inquiry stood, and how anxious he and his brother commissioners were to receive any evidence that might be offered. They examined five clergymen on one side of the question, and five clergymen on the other side, with regard to the practice in celebrating these marriages; but happily the question of scriptural prohibition had not been referred to them. His right hon. Friend had asked him how far he meant to go in altering the law of marriage; but he would tell his right hon. Friend at once that he meant to stand by this Bill, and that he had no intention to go farther, and he believed no such intention was entertained in any quarter. If any attempt to extend the principle farther were made hereafter, he would be ready to join his right hon. Friend in offering every opposition to it. He believed that the provision which was sought to be got rid of by this Bill, had been hastily introduced, for the first time, in 1835, into the common law of the country. Up to that time there was no hindrance in law to these marriages, which he believed in his conscience to be not only justified, but expressly allowed, in Scripture. His right hon. Friend had stated that this was an attempt to draw within the sphere of Parliament the Christian belief. The object of the Bill was the very contrary, as it was to withdraw from human legislation a control, which up to 1835 had never existed. For the first time, in 1835, they bound human conscience by presumptuously saying that these marriages should not take place. He only asked them to restore the liberty of entering into these marriages in cases where a conscientious belief was entertained by the clergyman celebrating them that they were not against the law of God. He should be ashamed to stand at that table to support the Bill if he believed it to be contrary to the law of God. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, in arguing this part of the case, seemed to forget that they had a positive injunction—a positive and unalterable law—laid down by the Author of Christianity, that "They whom God joins together no man shall put as-sunder;" and yet the law, as it now stood, put asunder those who believed that they were joined together by the law of God. It was said that they wanted to compel clergymen to celebrate these marriages. He held in his hand a pamphlet, written, he regretted to say, by a clergyman of the Church of England, in which so little attention was paid to facts that this assertion was put forward. In the third edition, however, the error was removed, and the very contrary was stated to be the object of the Bill; and yet this alteration was made without even a foot note alluding to the mistake that had been made in the previous editions. He regretted to add, that the clergyman who had been capable of this conduct was no other than the distinguished author of The Christian Year. His hon. and learned Friend had argued whether this was a marriage that a cautious and prudent clergyman would celebrate; but it should be recollected that the law of the Church would still remain the same, and that the influence of the Church over its clergy and members would continue as heretofore. His object was a very narrow one—to restore, as far as he could without inconvenience, the state of the law as it existed before 1835. But he had himself stated, at the outset of the debate, that there were many men who thought the prohibitions against marrying the husband's brother were much stronger than those against marrying the wife's sister. ["Divide!"] He would hurry to the consideration of the interpretation put upon the book of Leviticus. ["Divide, divide!"] He assured hon. Members that he was attending to the hour, and would close his observations in time for the division to take place. Those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken upon the subject, considered the marriage with a wife's sister to be one of the abominations of the Canaanites. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the argument in regard to the prohibition in Scripture of practices described as the abominations of the Canaanites, and insisted that the 18th verso of the xviiith chapter of Leviticus did not prohibit the marriages in question. In the Greek Church the marriage of two brothers with two sisters was considered incestuous, and prohibited on the ground that man and wife being one flesh, the brother and sister of the husband or wife were actually brother and sister of both. He was prepared to have gone into the history of those prohibitions, so as to show that from the earliest time they were the subject of grave and serious deliberation; but want of time prevented him. One subject he should, however, touch upon. It had been alleged that the poor had no interest in the question. He held in his hand several communications which he had received from clergymen of the most populous parishes—from St. Pancras (London), from Sheffield, and elsewhere—urging the great importance of the proposed alteration in the law to the poor. ["Divide, divide!"] He had always opposed the setting down of the Bill for a Wednesday. He regretted that he had no time left for replying further to the objections, which he was fully prepared to meet, and that he should now leave the Bill to the result of the division.

said, one minute for a case of conscience, and there was not a Member in the House who would be content with less. He was very anxious to support the Bill, so far as related to marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but he could only vote for the second reading on the understanding that if the passages relating to marriage with a deceased wife's niece were not expunged in Committee, he must vote against the third reading.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 143: Majority 34.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill read 2 ^o , and committed for Wednesday 4th July.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow without putting the Question.